Opera, Theatrical Culture
and Society in Late
Eighteenth-Century Naples
Anthony R. DelDonna
Opera, Theatrical Culture and Society in
Late Eighteenth-Century Naples
Ashgate Interdisciplinary Studies
in Opera
Series Editor
Roberta Montemorra Marvin
University of Iowa, USA
Advisory Board
Linda Hutcheon, University of Toronto, Canada
David Levin, University of Chicago, USA
Herbert Lindenberger, Emeritus Professor, Stanford University, USA 
Julian Rushton, Emeritus Professor, University of Leeds, UK
The Ashgate Interdisciplinary Studies in Opera series provides a centralized
and prominent forum for the presentation of cutting-edge scholarship that draws
on numerous disciplinary approaches to a wide range of subjects associated
with the creation, performance, and reception of opera (and related genres) in
various historical and social contexts. There is great need for a broader approach
to scholarship about opera. In recent years, the course of study has developed
significantly, going beyond traditional musicological approaches to reflect
new perspectives from literary criticism and comparative literature, cultural
history, philosophy, art history, theatre history, gender studies, film studies,
political science, philology, psycho-analysis, and medicine. The new brands of
scholarship have allowed a more comprehensive interrogation of the complex
nexus of means of artistic expression operative in opera, one that has meaningfully
challenged prevalent historicist and formalist musical approaches. The
Ashgate Interdisciplinary Studies in Opera series continues to move this important
trend forward by including essay collections and monographs that reflect the
ever-increasing interest in opera in non-musical contexts. Books in the series
will be linked by their emphasis on the study of a single genre—opera—yet will
be distinguished by their individualized and novel approaches by scholars from
various disciplines/fields of inquiry. The remit of the series welcomes studies
of seventeenth century to contemporary opera from all geographical locations,
including non-Western topics.
Other Titles in the Series
Modernism and the Cult of Mountains: Music, Opera, Cinema
Christopher Morris
Musical Theatre, Realism and Entertainment
Millie Taylor
Opera, Theatrical Culture and
Society in Late EighteenthCentury Naples
Anthony R. DelDonna
Georgetown University, USA
© Anthony R. DelDonna 2012
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
Anthony R. DelDonna has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act,
1988, to be identified as the author of this work.
Published by
Ashgate Publishing LimitedAshgate Publishing Company
Suite 420
Wey Court East
Union Road
101 Cherry Street
FarnhamBurlington
VT 05401-4405
Surrey, GU9 7PT
EnglandUSA
www.ashgate.com
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
DelDonna, Anthony.
Opera, theatrical culture and society in late eighteenth-century Naples. – (Ashgate
interdisciplinary studies in opera)
1. Opera–Italy–Naples–18th century. 2. Opera audiences–Italy–Naples–History–18th
century.
I. Title II. Series
782.1’0945731’09033-dc23
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
DelDonna, Anthony.
Opera, theatrical culture and society in late eighteenth-century Naples / Anthony R.
DelDonna.
p. cm. – (Ashgate interdisciplinary studies in opera)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4094-2278-5 (hardcover : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-1-4094-2279-2 (ebook)
1. Opera–Italy–Naples–18th century. I. Title.
ML1733.8.N3D46 2012
792.50945’73109033–dc23
2012009616
ISBN 9781409422785 (hbk)
ISBN 9781409422792 (ebk – PDF)
ISBN 9781409484189 (ebk – ePub)
Bach musicological font developed
XVby © Yo Tomita.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by the
MPG Books Group, UK.
To the memory of my brother
Joseph Vincent DelDonna
February 6, 1965 – August 31, 2010
Mere words can never render the feelings of love, loss and longing for
your presence in our lives.
This page has been left blank intentionally
Contents
List of Figures List of Music Examples List of Tables List of Abbreviations Series Editor’s Preface Acknowledgments Introduction 1
ix
xi
xiii
xv
xvii
xix
1
Opera, Antiquity, and the Neapolitan Enlightenment in Paisiello’s Socrate
immaginario (1775) 13
2Naples, carnevale and the commedia per musica: Il convitato di
pietra (1783) 43
3
Giovanni Paisiello’s Elfrida: Operatic Idol, Martyr and Symbol of
Nation 4
Nationalism, Cultural Identity and the Modern Neapolitan Kingdom:
Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi and Enea, e Lavinia 109
5
Debora e Sisara and the Rise of Lenten Tragedy 6
At the Precipice of Revolution: Piccinni’s Gionata (1792) as Drama and Diplomacy 193
7
The Neapolitan Ballet d’Action: Il ratto delle Sabine (1780) 8
The Neapolitan Ballet d’Action and the Art of Experimentation 257
Bibliography Index 73
147
227
289
311
This page has been left blank intentionally
List of Figures
8.1
8.2
Vicente Martín y Soler, La Bella Arsene, Act I description Vicente Martín y Soler, La Bella Arsene, Act I description 270
271
This page has been left blank intentionally
List of Music Examples
1.1
1.2
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5 4.1
4.2
4.3 4.4
Giovanni Paisiello, Socrate immaginario, Act II, scene 9, “Chi tra
quest’orride” (chorus), mm. 1–4 Giovanni Paisiello, Socrate immaginario, Act II, scene 9, “Simmia
… Simmia” (Tammaro), mm. 1–4 Giacomo Tritto, Il convitato di pietra, Act I, scene 5, “Mo nce vò na
tarantella” (Lesbina, Bastiano, Pulcinella), mm. 67–75 Giacomo Tritto, Il convitato di pietra, Act I, scene 5, continuo part,
mm. 8–15 Giacomo Tritto, Il convitato di pietra, Act I, scene 13, “Dov’è più la
Contessina” (Lesbina), mm. 6–12 Giacomo Tritto, Il convitato di pietra, Act I, scene 13, “Dov’è più la
Contessina” (Lesbina), mm. 29–35 Giacomo Tritto, Il convitato di pietra, Act I, scene 13, “Dov’è più la
Contessina” (Lesbina), mm. 77–84 Giacomo Tritto, Il convitato di pietra, Act I, scene 13, “Dov’è più la
Contessina” (Lesbina), mm. 111–121 Giovanni Paisiello, Elfrida, Act I, scene 11, “Da qual peso crudele”
(Elfrida), mm. 5–11 Giovanni Paisiello, Elfrida, Act I, scene 11, “Da qual peso crudele”
(Elfrida), mm. 17–22 Giovanni Paisiello, Elfrida, Act II, scene 5, “Schernir possiamo”
(Elfrida), mm. 25–29 Giovanni Paisiello, Elfrida, Act I, scene 5, “Pensa chi sei, chi sono”
(Orgando), mm. 3–12 Giovanni Paisiello, Elfrida, Act I, Scene 5, “Pensa chi sei, chi sono”
(Orgando), mm. 14–24 Alessandro Guglielmi, Enea e Lavinia, Act I, scene 5, “Sento agitato
in seno” (Latino), mm. 16–23 Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Enea e Lavinia, Act I, scene 8,
orchestral introduction, mm. 1–10 Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Enea e Lavinia, Act I, scene 8, “Della
scelta Lavinia arbitra sia” (faun diety), mm. 50–56 Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Enea e Lavinia, Act I, scene 8, “Tetro
orrore” (Latino), mm. 107–112 34
36
63
64
64
66
67
68
92
93
94
99
101
130
132
134
136
xii
Opera, Theatrical Culture and Society in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples
4.5
Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Enea e Lavinia, Act II, scene 4,
“Lavinia, odi miei detti” (Lavinia), mm. 1–21 5.1 Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Debora e Sisara, Part I, scene 2, “Un
buon sovrano” (Debora; accompanied recitative), mm. 3–12 Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Debora e Sisara, Part I, scene 3,
“Sento già voce” (Debora), mm. 17–29 Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Debora e Sisara, Part I, scene 6,
“Tuoni il cielo” (Sisara), mm. 7–15 Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Debora e Sisara, Part II, scene 5; “A
compir già” (Debora), mm. 24–31 Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Debora e Sisara, Part II, scene 5, “A
compir già” (Debora), mm. 129–137 Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Debora e Sisara, Part II, scene 9,
“Sinfonia tempesta,” mm. 1–10 Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Debora e Sisara, Part II, scene 11, “il
chiodo del Padglione” (Giaele), mm. 17–34 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.1
6.2 6.3
6.4
6.5
7.1 7.2
8.1
8.2
8.3 8.4 8.5 Niccolò Piccinni, Gionata, Part I, scene 4, “Del Popol tuo gran Dio”
(Chorus), mm. 81–86 Niccolò Piccinni, Gionata, Part I, scene 6, “Ah tal voler lontano”
(Chorus), mm. 1–5. Niccolò Piccinni, Gionata, Part I, scene 11, “Fra deliri fra sogni”
(Samuele), mm. 1–8 Niccolò Piccinni, Gionata, Part I, scene 11, “Fra deliri fra sogni”
(Samuele), mm. 36–40 Niccolò Piccinni, Gionata, Part II, scene 7, “Ah, non si diè finora”
(Saul), mm. 1–9 Vicente Martín y Soler, Il ratto delle Sabine, Act I, No. 8, rhythmic
analysis Vicente Martín y Soler, Il ratto delle Sabine, Act I, No. 11, rhythmic
analysis Josef Mysliveček, Romolo ed Ersilia, Act I, Introduzione, “Sul
Tarpeo propizie” (chorus), mm. 1–12 Josef Mysliveček, Romolo ed Ersilia, Act I, Introduzione, “Sul
Tarpeo propizie” (chorus), mm. 45–52 Vicente Martín y Soler, La Bella Arsene, Act II, rhythmic analysis
Vicente Martín y Soler, La Bella Arsene, Act III, “Di sue Lodi suon
verace” (terzetto of sopranos), mm. 9–14 Vicente Martín y Soler, La Bella Arsene, Act III, rhythmic analysis
139
166
168
170
174
176
180
184
210
212
218
221
223
247
248
263
265
274
279
281
List of Tables
1.1 Tammaro’s aria, “Luci vaghe” 30
2.1
Act I, scene 5 (Lesbina, Pulcinella, Bastiano) 59
4.1 Act I, scene 5, outline of scene complex 5.1 5.2 Chronology of Lenten azione sacra by Sernicola 158
Part II, scene 5: analysis of Debora’s aria “A compir già vò l’impresa” 174
7.1
7.2
7.3 Ballets by Martín y Soler and LePicq 240
Vicente Martín y Soler, Il ratto delle Sabine (1780), outline of Act I 246
Vicente Martín y Soler, Il ratto delle Sabine (1780), outline of Act II 250
8.1 Vicente Martín y Soler, La bella Arsene (1781), outline of content,
Act I Vicente Martín y Soler, La bella Arsene (1781), outline of content,
Act II Vicente Martín y Soler, La bella Arsene (1781), outline of content,
Acts III–V 8.2 8.3 129
272
273
278
This page has been left blank intentionally
List of Abbreviations
I-Na
I-Nc
I-Nlp
I-Nn
I-Nsn
I-Rn
US-NYp
US-Wc
US-Wcg
Naples, Archivio di Stato
Naples, Biblioteca del Conservatorio San Pietro a Majella
Naples, Biblioteca Lucchesi Palli [In Nn]
Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III
Biblioteca della Società Napoletana di Storia Patria
Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele II
New York, Public Library at Lincoln Center, Music Division
Washington, DC Library of Congress, Music Division
Washington, DC Library of Congress, General Collection
This page has been left blank intentionally
Series Editor’s Preface
Ashgate Interdisciplinary Studies in Opera provides a centralized and prominent
forum for the presentation of cutting-edge scholarship that draws on numerous
disciplinary approaches on a wide range of subjects associated with the creation,
performance, dissemination, and reception of opera and related genres in various
historical and social contexts. The series includes topics from the seventeenth
century to the present and from all geographical locations, including nonWestern traditions.
In recent years, the field of opera studies has not only come into its own but
has developed significantly, going beyond traditional musicological approaches
to reflect new perspectives from literary criticism and comparative literature,
cultural history, philosophy, art history, theater history, gender studies, film
studies, political science, philology, psycho-analysis, and even medicine. The
new brands of scholarship have allowed a more comprehensive and intensive
interrogation of the complex nexus of means of artistic expression operative
in opera, one that has meaningfully challenged prevalent historicist and
formalist musical approaches. Today, interdisciplinary, or as some prefer crossdisciplinary, opera studies are receiving increasingly widespread attention, and
the ways in which scholars, practitioners, and the public think about the artform
known as opera continue to change and expand. Ashgate Interdisciplinary
Studies in Opera seeks to move this important trend forward by including essay
collections and monographs that reflect the ever-increasing interest in opera in
non-musical contexts.
In Theatrical Culture, Opera, and Society in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples
Anthony R. DelDonna deals with Neapolitan operatic culture between 1775
and 1800. As the author points out, the last important scholarly book devoted
entirely to Neapolitan opera was published nearly forty years ago, and a fresh
consideration of Neapolitan music and culture is overdue. In this relevant and
timely contribution to the literature on eighteenth-century opera, DelDonna
demonstrates how stage traditions of the era, stimulated by the Enlightenment,
engaged with and responded to the changing social, political, and artistic contexts
of late eighteenth-century Naples. The book is divided into four sections, each
devoted to a broad topic: “Opera and Enlightenment,” “Opera and Gender as
Sovereign Emblem,” “Opera and Religious Ritual,” and “Opera and Theatrical
Dance.” Each topic is approached through case studies of operas that introduce
musical and dramatic innovations and that also afford insights into Neapolitan
culture more broadly. Focusing on representative compositions that illuminate
diverse cultural forces shaping works from various operatic genres, the author
also explains how the city’s cultural milieu influenced the creation of a unique
xviii
Opera, Theatrical Culture and Society in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples
repertory. Integrating meticulous archival investigation with the study of primary
sources, DelDonna thus offers valuable scholarship that engages broad areas of
inquiry in contemporary musicology.
Roberta Montemorra Marvin
Acknowledgments
This project began as a labor of love for early modern Naples, its history, and
considerable musical patrimony. The impossibility of writing a comprehensive
account led to a no less daunting, yet manageable attempt to focus on the eighteenth
century and in particular the operatic stages of the city in the final thirty years of
the period. There have been many colleagues, friends, and students (whether in
the United States, the United Kingdom, or Italy) who have encouraged its creation
and ultimately shaped its outcome and to whom I would like to express gratitude.
I would like to thank the institutions and individuals that played a critical role
in the creation of this monograph. The Society for Eighteenth-Century Music,
the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies and the Società italiana
di musicologia have afforded me over the years repeated opportunities to share
my work and to receive critical feedback and exchange ideas with scholars in
the field. There have also been numerous symposia in Italy (especially Naples
itself) on the music, musicians, and society that are addressed in my discussions
and representations of Neapolitan culture and its opera. The major part of the
research was completed abroad in Naples and I am indebted to the establishments
that hosted my studies. The Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Napoli (San Pietro a
Majella) and its Director, Dr. Francesco Melisi, have been a continued and critical
resource for this book. I am especially indebted to his colleagues over the years
Dr. Antonio Caroccia, Dr. Tiziana Grande, and Dr. Mauro Amato, who helped
locate all of the operas, libretti, and different editions thereof, and who even
offered critical feedback on the sources. Alberto Bivash generously responded to
all of my requests for microfilm and provided me with the necessary resources to
work on the manuscripts outside of Naples. I have also had the distinct pleasure
to work at the Biblioteca della Società Napoletana di Storia Patria (di Napoli) and
I am indebted to Dr. Francesca Neri, who shared her considerable knowledge,
expertise and wonderful hospitality with me. The Biblioteca Nazionale (in
particular the Sezione Lucchesi Palli and Sezione Napoletana) and the Archivio
di Stato di Napoli (especially Dr. Sonia Napoletana) have also provided critical
sources of information and interaction with colleagues in the field. In the United
States, no institution has played a greater role in bringing this book to fruition than
Georgetown University. I would like to thank the School of Graduate Studies for
its continued financial support of this project in the form of Summer Academic
Grants, a faculty fellowship, and a competitive grant in aid. My colleague Prof.
Anna Celenza has been a constant source of encouragement, advice, and patient
understanding. I am also most appreciative of colleagues who took interest in
the book as it developed, especially Profs. Rufus Jones, John O’Malley, S.J.,
Mark Henninger, S.J., John Pfordresher, and Duncan Wu. Among my peers at
xx
Opera, Theatrical Culture and Society in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples
Georgetown, none had a great impact on the book than Profs. Tommaso Astarita,
Gianni Cicali and Carol Sargent, whose research on early modern Naples and the
eighteenth century in general have provided invaluable insights and influenced
my approach deeply. I am most indebted to my colleague, collaborator, and friend
Prof. Mark Janello from the Peabody Conservatory of Music for his tireless
feedback and willingness to perform music discussed in the book, proof musical
examples and correct the analyses. I am also grateful to the staff of the Library
of Congress, Music Division and Rare Book Collection; Georgetown’s Lauinger
Library (especially Artemis Kirk, John Buchtel and its InterLibrary Loan office);
the New York Public Library, Rare Books and Manuscripts and Performing Arts.
Through the years, I have had the blessing to work with highly gifted
colleagues in Naples and the United Kingdom. None have been more influential
than Profs. Paologiovanni Maione, Francesca Seller, Francesco Cotticelli and
Michael Robinson, who have been inexhaustible sources of critical feedback,
advice, assistance and warm friendship. The many hours of dialogue in which we
have engaged (laughed, cried, and screamed) about Settecento Naples, its culture,
and its musical traditions, has proven to be a lasting influence on this project and
all of my work through our sixteen years of collaboration. I would also like to
express my heartfelt gratitude to their families as well for always welcoming me
into their lives and homes. This book has also been highly influenced by Michael
Robinson, who has been an unparalleled mentor and interlocutor all these years.
The attention, advice, and interest that you have demonstrated have provided a
significant inspiration and standard by which I measure all of my work. A number
of colleagues in Italy also shared their expertise including Lucio Tufano, Francesco
Nocerino, Cesare Corsi, Prof. Franco Piperno, Prof. Renato di Benedetto, Dinko
Fabris, Antonio Florio, Alessandro Ciccolini, Gabriele Rocchetti, Eleonora Negri,
and many others as this project developed in the past several years. I cannot thank
enough my family in Naples, who have endured my annual visits, related struggles,
and triumphs as this book came together: Pasquale Casillo and Loredana Vacca
and their son Lorenzo; Cristian Casillo and Rossella Mosca and their daughter
Mariavittoria; my beloved Zio Vincenzo Tomei, my faithful Aunt Lidia Casillo,
and innumerable friends, including Dr. Gina Sgrosso (and her husband Antonio)
and the Incarnato family (Arturo, Maria, Gaetano, and Paolo).
There are also many colleagues in the United States who have been generous
in sharing their ideas and providing crucial information and critical responses:
Lowell Lindgren, Bruce Alan Brown, John Rice, Guido Olivieri, Alvaro Ribiero,
Marita McClymonds, Cyrilla Barr, and Margaret Butler. As the book worked
toward conclusion, I had the honor to meet and work with Sara Peacock, whose
considerable editorial work greatly improved the manuscript. I am also grateful
for the many friends who inquired about the book, its content and development,
especially John and Donna Romito, Ted and Patty Larsen, Daryl Mull and
Marianne McInerney, and Dr. Beth Dennis. A profound and heartfelt expression
of thanks to Pierpaolo Polzonetti for his many years of close friendship, warm
collegiality and collaboration. Your continued encouragement, willingness to read
Acknowledgments
xxi
this book, and to provide help and direction at every stage of its creation have been
unmatched. There are simply not enough words to express my gratitude.
Finally, this book is dedicated to my wife Tina and daughter Alessandra for
their enduring love, patience, and understanding.
This page has been left blank intentionally
Introduction
The reign of Carlo I d’Angio (r. 1266–85) established the city of Naples as
the capital of a kingdom. It was the rise of Carlo di Borbone (1716–88), Duke
of Parma and Piacenza, however, that led to the founding of the independent
Kingdom of Naples five centuries later, in 1734. This in turn was the catalyst for
the birth of a new national identity, one with profound political, social, and cultural
consequences. The expanse of the kingdom itself was substantial; by the end of
the century the population of the capital fluctuated between 350,000 and 400,000
making it the third-largest metropolis in Europe after Paris and London. Neapolitan
culture was deeply affected by the city’s assertion of this new status, resulting in
a flurry of new political, civic, and ecclesiastical reforms; beautification projects;
excavations of antiquities; and an unprecedented patronage of musical traditions,
which had been among the richest on the Continent since the previous century.
The kingdom was also marked by vibrant intellectual discourse and achievements
in virtually every contemporary discipline, which were often devoted to the
forging of a new, emergent national identity and its diffusion throughout Europe.
This book focuses on theatrical traditions, specifically opera and ballet, and on
selected works in Naples in the last third of its greatest century. The framework
of discussion for each composition and representative genre (whether tragedy,
comedy, sacred drama, or dance) is contemporary culture and the attendant
political, social, or humanistic discourse that animated and conditioned the
content of the selected operas and ballets. From this perspective, the dramatic
stage becomes the primary lens through which contemporary culture is presented
and examined, offering a compelling portrait of theatrical traditions and their
place within society itself. This viewpoint also allows the witness to observe the
place of Naples within European artistic (especially stage) trends and to draw
substantive comparisons, insights, and conclusions. From a purely artistic point
of view, it is evident that Neapolitan traditions offered a unique dichotomy. They
were idiosyncratic to their Neapolitan context, yet also responsive to conventions
and innovations posited elsewhere on the European continent. The importance of
the dramatic stage and its social significance was recognized by Giuseppe Maria
Galanti, who underlined the value of this phenomenon in 1785:
Il teatro racchiude molte belle arti, sopra tutto quelle d’imitazione. Tali sono la
poesia, la musica, la danza, la scena, le decorazioni. Per questo il teatro è stato
sempre riguardato come l’istrumento principale da formare il pubblico costume.
Preso di noi il teatro è di tre generi, cioè di opera drammatica in musica, di
Opera, Theatrical Culture and Society in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples
2
opera buffa in musica, di opera comica. Nel primo genere il nostro teatro non ha
l’equale in Europa.1
(Theater envelops many fine arts, above all that of recreation. This is the intent
of poetry, music, dance, scenery [and] staging. For this [reason] theater is always
considered as the principal instrument for the formation of public morality. As
conceived by us, there are three genres of drama, that is tragedy, comedy and
farce. In regard to the first, Neapolitan theater has no equal in Europe.)
“A Remote and Indolent Corner of the World”
Despite this rather negative (and often quoted) assessment from Lord William
Hamilton, appointed British ambassador to the kingdom in 1763, a noted academic
tradition in the capital city began to take root in the mid-seventeenth century. By the
eighteenth century, and especially from the 1760s onward, Enlightenment thought
was at the core of local intellectual discourse, spurred by societal and social realities
as well as political influence, including the Seven Years War, the Neapolitan
Famine (1764), and the expulsion of the Jesuits (1767). The work of Antonio
Genovesi (1712–69), emphasizing the social utility of intellectual discourse, is
a critical point of departure for Neapolitan society. In the coming decades the
ideas Genovesi sparked were to take shape in discussions of democracy, individual
rights, a free-market economy, and the questioning of privilege and social class—
among other themes found in the ideas of the Neapolitan philosophers Gaetano
Filangeri, Ferdinando Galiani, and Mario Pagano, and in the diverse salons of
the city, especially that of Antonio and Domenico Di Gennaro. Even a lesserknown figure (in terms of the Continent) such as Giacinto Dragonetti presented a
comprehensive plan for social reform of the Kingdom to Ferdinando IV in 1766,
detailing broad initiatives in the arts, sciences, commerce, and national security.2
Scholastic discourse was also reaching fever pitch in Neapolitan artistic circles of
the late eighteenth century in the works of Saverio Mattei, Antonio Planelli, Antonio
Grimaldi, Galiani, Luigi Serio, and others. As noted earlier, an understanding of
Naples’s diffuse and venerable musical culture is crucial for comprehending the
works discussed later in the present work. Since the end of the Seicento, the city
had been marked by an unprecedented cultivation of vocal, instrumental, and
dance genres. The introduction and flowering of different types of opera (tragic,
comic, and sacred) and dance (ballet and social) were closely associated with the
Giuseppe Maria Galanti, Della descrizione geografica e politica delle Sicilie, ed.
Franca Assante and Domenico DeMarco, 2 vols (Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane,
1969), vol. 1, p. 266.
2
See Anna Maria Rao, “Una capitale del pensiero,” in Storia della musica e dello
spettacolo a Napoli, ed. Francesco Cotticelli and Paologiovanni Maione, vol. 1 (Naples:
Turchini Edizioni, 2009), pp. 10–11.
1
Introduction
3
renown of the city. Critical roles in the rise of all of these traditions were played
by the supporting educational system of the conservatory, by the existence at the
highest levels of political and social patronage of the genres, and by the venues
dedicated to them. The brief discussion of these traditions, their conventions, and
even the institutions themselves provides a broader context and points of reference
for the compositions analyzed in the following chapters.
A City of Entertainment
Throughout the course of the eighteenth century, no theatrical structure was as
closely associated with a reigning aristocratic dynasty as the Teatro di San Carlo.
The San Carlo was constructed in 1737 adjacent to the Palazzo Reale, accentuating
the connections between politics and theatrical patronage, whose origins in
the city reached back to the mid-seventeenth century.3 This understanding was
reinforced from the very conception of theater by its overseers, who envisioned
four operas per season, which were required to, “basarsi su sei o sette attori ed i
così detti ‘primi attori,’ cioè il primo uomo, la prima donna ed il tenore, sarebbero
dovuti essere ‘di quelli che girano l’Italia e i teatri fuori d’Italia,’ cioè di livello
europeo”4 (base themselves on six or seven actors and the so-called “first-cast,”
that is the primo uomo, the prima donna and tenor, should rightfully be “from
among those who perform throughout Italy and in the theaters abroad,” that is on a
European level). Even the premiere dates for each new work were conditioned by
dynastic pretension: the season at San Carlo commenced on the name day of Carlo
di Borbone (November 4), with new works to follow on the birthdates of Philip V
of Spain (December 19) and Carlo (January 20).5
The exclusive connection between San Carlo and the Bourbon court was
enhanced by the latter’s control of the jus prohibendi.6 This statute traced its
existence to the seventeenth century and granted a theatrical monopoly in the city,
guaranteeing the court that no other institution (such as an ospedale or charitable
organization) or entrepreneur could enter the theatrical market without royal
consent. A more explicit outline of the appropriate repertoire to be performed,
3
For the details regarding the introduction of opera to Naples, see Michael Robinson,
Naples and Neapolitan Opera (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972; reprint, New York: Da
Capo Press, 1985).
4
Carolina Belli, “Il San Carlo attraverso le fonti documentarie,” in Il teatro del Re: Il
San Carlo da Napoli all’Europa (Naples: Edizioni scientiche, 1987), p. 175.
5
Paolo Fabbri, “Vita e funzioni di un teatro pubblico e di corte nel Settecento,” in Il
Teatro di San Carlo, ed. Franco Mancini, vol. 2 (Naples: Electa Napoli, 1987), p. 60.
6
See Robinson, Naples and Neapolitan Opera; also Anthony R. DelDonna, “Opera
in Naples,” in The Cambridge Companion to Eighteenth-Century Opera, ed. Anthony
R. DelDonna and Pierpaolo Polzonetti (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009),
pp. 214–32.
4
Opera, Theatrical Culture and Society in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples
and one in clear accordance with the promotion of a new Neapolitan identity was
provided by the Uditore dell’escercito (Auditor of the Army), Erasmo Ulloa San
Severino, who was entrusted with the oversight of personnel and administration.
He posited that, “non è dubbio che tra i poeti, i quali nel secolo presente fioriscono
nella composizione dei drammi, il più concettoso e che il carattere dei finti
sovrani e delle parti eroiche meglio vesta e fornisca, egli è il rinomato Pietro
abate Metastasio”7 (there is no doubt that among the poets now excelling in
the composition of dramas, the most refined and the one who creates the most
complete characters of sovereigns and heroes is the famous Pietro Metastasio).
Yet even in Naples, one of the last exclusive bastions of Metastasian tragedy,
calls for fundamental reconsideration and outright reform were heard by 1770.
There was a growing consensus that a more promising approach would include
the treatment of human passions (exemplified by the return to Greek tragedy in the
works of reformers such as the librettist Ranieri de’ Calzabigi), not to mention a
more integrated balance of drama’s constituent elements. And within these broad
thematic changes came a continued diversification of poetic and musical content.
Profound departures from the Metastasian archetype were achieved through the
greater range of musical styles and conventions in works from the late eighteenth
century. These included different forms of accompanied recitative (accompagnato,
obbligato, and so on), less rigid aria outlines (an array of binary and ternary types),
internal ensembles and finales, and a larger role for, and more timbral variety
in, the orchestral ensemble at the San Carlo, one of the largest on the European
continent. Although the use of the castrato voice lingered (even into the early part
of the nineteenth century), the tenor and bass voices were increasingly utilized
(as in the cases of Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi’s Debora e Sisara and Niccolò
Piccinni’s Gionata; see Chapters 5 and 6 respectively). All of these styles and
conventions are in evidence in the works under examination.
It is also evident that the composers closely associated with Naples and its
theatrical culture (such as Guglielmi, Piccinni, and Giovanni Paisiello) were
exposed to the most contemporary ideas, whether poetic or musical, in their
own travels to other operatic centers such as Vienna, Venice, Paris, and London,
to name a few. The fact that these musicians worked across genres, avoiding
exclusive association with any single type, is also significant. Virtually all of
the aforementioned standards (especially new aria types and ensembles) and
characteristics also formed the fabric of contemporary comic genres in Naples.
There remained, however, distinctions in vocal style often tied to character type.
The florid style of singing associated with tragedy and its heroic protagonists is
present, though less pronounced. Calzabigi’s evolving views on declamation (see
Chapter 3 on his opera Elfrida), and hence on singing, came to bear on Paisiello’s
lean, less ornamented approach. Certain stylistic conventions nevertheless
persisted within comic genres, especially the basso buffo archetype and the rapid
7
As quoted in Benedetto Croce, I teatri di Napoli del secolo XV–XVIII (Bari: Laterza
and Figli, 1926; reprint, Naples, 1968), p. 165.
Introduction
5
enunciation of sdrucciolo verses. Yet the skill level required by comic works
was consistent with the demands made by their tragic counterpart, and one can
make a case that these forms placed an increasing premium on greater attention
to acting. There is also a clear sense of coalescence along certain lines of musical
style among tragedy and the different shades of comic theater in Naples. Reliance
on a periodic phrase structure (whether vocal or instrumental) and conventional
harmonic progressions (with liberties taken for dramatic effect) were accepted
practices by 1770 (although there were distinct differences between Paisiello,
Guglielmi, and Piccinni, as I shall discuss in subsequent chapters). It is in the
realm of formal articulation that the most experimentation occurred, conditioned
by new philosophical ideas (above all those of Mattei and Planelli), new verse
types and organization (the latter in regard to finale constructs), and of course the
dramatic situation of any given opera.
This uniformity of style and often convention is attested by the fact that, as
the century moved on, the theaters of Naples even shared personnel; Giuseppe
Trabalza and his wife, Lucia Celeste Trabalza, for instance, began their careers in
the local comic venues and eventually moved on to tragic repertoire performed at
the San Carlo. This type of trajectory, not to mention versatility, stemmed from the
instruction provided in the local conservatories.
These establishments—the Santa Maria di Loreto, Santa Maria della Pietà
dei Turchini, Poveri di Gesù Cristo, and Sant’Onofrio a Capuana—achieved
their greatest prestige in early modern Naples. By the middle of the seventeenth
century, all were apparently schools of music, whose instruction was increasingly
entrusted to the leading maestri of Naples and whose standards were marked by an
unprecedented rigor. The growing acclaim of the conservatories, primarily through
the accomplishments of former students, was the catalyst for each establishment to
admit fee-paying pupils.8 The distinction that emerged was of orfani and convittori;
the former signified those who demonstrated a musical aptitude and were provided
entrance and their education more or less gratis, while the latter were required to
pay tuition annually. The orfani did, nevertheless, repay their institutions through
service—that is, performances in the city’s churches, private homes, and theaters.
Upon acceptance and entrance into a conservatory, a student was bound
through a contractual agreement specifying the number of instructional years
to be completed, and other details of commitment that varied according to the
institution. In general, the age of entry was eight years, and surviving sources
indicate that the length of stay ranged from five to twelve years. Students could
enter until the age of eighteen, yet those entering at a more advanced age had to
demonstrate a high level of skill to be admitted at this point. An understanding of
the role of the conservatory in forming musicians to enter the eighteenth-century
theatrical market is evident from the beginning of the century, and can be derived
8
See Lucio Tufano, “Il mestiere del musicista: formazione, mercato, consapevolezza,
immagine,” in Storia della musica e dello spettacolo a Napoli, vol. 2 (Naples: Turchini
Edizioni, 2009), pp. 733–72.
Opera, Theatrical Culture and Society in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples
6
from Francesco Mancini’s opera Il zelo animato (1733). Composed while Mancini
was the maestro di cappella of the Santa Maria di Loreto, the drama was written
expressly for his students: the frontispiece of the libretto notes that it was “da
rappresentarsi nel Regal Conservatorio degl’orfani di Santa Maria di Loreto
nel presente Anno 1733 da Figlioli adierni del medesimo”9 (to be performed in
the Royal Conservatory of Orphans […] by the children belonging to the same
[institution]). The cumulative importance of the opera is as a document of
established educational practices and the required skills (whether for an aspiring
composer, singer, or instrumentalist) to enter the highly competitive marketplace
of tragic, comic, and sacred genres.10 It is reasonable to assume that these standards
persisted (with some evident fluctuation) throughout the century11 given the steady
stream of highly skilled musicians who achieved distinction throughout Europe
and brought renown to the capital city and its operatic practices. All except one
of the musicians under examination in this book (Vicente Martín y Soler) were
educated in the Neapolitan conservatories.
The comedic genres of late eighteenth-century Naples occupied a unique
position within general practices on the Continent, displaying clearly idiosyncratic
and regional characteristics, yet also bearing the constituent traits of the
international style of opera buffa. The origins of the Neapolitan commedia per
musica that thrived in the latter half of the century are derived from the vestiges
of the local commedia dell’arte and the first genre of comic opera, the commeddja
pe’ mmuseca. The synthesis of these earlier genres into the commedia per musica
is evident in broad dramatic themes, character types, and conventions of music,
poetry, and language. The distinctive qualities that persisted in the eighteenth
century were the dramatic archetypes and use of the Neapolitan language. Yet
this genre was also inclined toward adaptation and synthesis, given that, as early
as the 1740s, works were adjusted in content (most often with the translation of
Neapolitan into Tuscan and changes in character) and exported to Rome. The most
profound impact on the commedia per musica (and comedic opera in general) was
undoubtedly the Venetian playwright Carlo Goldoni’s innovations and the literary
quality of his works. His influence is apparent in the librettos of such Neapolitan
innovators as Giovanni Battista Lorenzi (the author of Socrate immaginario and Il
convitato di pietra; see Chapters 1 and 2) and Francesco Cerlone. These librettists
Il zelo animato, Napoli 1733. Libretto RARI 10.10.19 (9). Biblioteca del
Conservatorio San Pietro a Majella, Napoli. See also Francesco Mancini, Il zelo animato
ovvero Il Gran Profeta Elia, score 1733 Rari 28.3.13 Biblioteca del Conservatorio San
Pietro a Majella, Napoli.
10
See Anthony R. DelDonna, “An Eighteenth-Century Musical Education: Francesco
Mancini’s Il zelo animato (1733),” Recercare 19, no. 1–2 (2007), pp. 205–18.
11
The most famous English-language account noting the decline of instructional
practices is attributed to Charles Burney. See Burney, The Present State of Music in France
and Italy, 2nd edn (London: Becket and Company, 1773; reprint, New York: Broude, 1969),
pp. 336–9.
9
Introduction
7
crafted sophisticated operas whose plots contained underlying moral or social
elements (along the lines of Enlightened thought), that offered a window onto
contemporary Naples.
The retention of dramatic archetypes and the local language strengthened the
connections between the stage and its societal context. Yet the commedia per
musica was a genre of action, whose texts were predisposed to musical realization
in the arias and above all in the ensembles. The most significant conventions to
emerge were the introductory ensemble (or introduzione) that set the plot in motion
and the ever-larger act-concluding finales. Both of these developments created
extended pieces accompanied by the orchestra, thereby augmenting its role.
With this redefinition of the Neapolitan comedy as a genre possessing elements
of European practice and inherently local features came a new audience. By the
last third of the century, the commedia per musica was widely patronized by the
aristocratic and intellectual communities of the city, most notably the sovereign
Ferdinando IV and the diplomat, economist, and dramatist Ferdinando Galiani.
In 1776 Ferdinando IV ended the exclusive connection of the court with the San
Carlo that had been established by his father by attending public performances of
the commedia at both the Teatro de’ Fiorentini and Teatro Nuovo.12 Ferdinando
IV was also increasingly inclined to order performances of the commedia per
musica in private at the royal palaces of Portici and Caserta. In 1783 he took
the unprecedented step of having a comedy by Domenico Cimarosa, La ballerina
amante, performed in the Teatro di San Carlo.13 The way these works resonated
within the intellectual circles of Naples can be sensed from the correspondence
between Ferdinando Galiani and Madame d’Epinay from the beginning of the
1770s.14 Galiani’s letters are rife with praise for the “perfection” of the commedia,
especially its retention of the Neapolitan language.15 The discussion of comedy as
a potential avenue for reform of theater was even noted in a fleeting manner by
the principal theoretician of late eighteenth-century Naples, Saverio Mattei (see
Chapter 1).
Throughout the eighteenth century there was a vibrant entrepreneurial spirit
within the theatrical community in Naples, taking the form of competing comic
venues, which became the meeting place for all strata of society. The capital
city boasted three and sometimes four locations devoted almost entirely to the
commedia per musica: the Teatro de’ Fiorentini, the Teatro Nuovo, the Teatro della
See Robinson, Naples and Neapolitan Opera.
Evidence of this command performance is found among account books pertaining
to the San Carlo located in the Archivio di Stato di Napoli. See DelDonna, “An Archival
Study of Production Practices of Neapolitan opera seria at the Teatro di San Carlo in the
late-18th century,” Early Music 31, no. 3 (August 2002), pp. 429–45.
14
See Louise d’Épinay and Ferdinando Galiani, Epistolario 1769–1782, vol. 1, ed.
Stefano Rapisarda (Palermo: Sellerio, 1996), pp. 342–63.
15
This assessment is given by Galiani in the letter dated November 9, 1771 to
d’Épinay. See d’Épinay and Galiani, Epistolario 1769–1782, vol. 1, p. 421.
12
13
8
Opera, Theatrical Culture and Society in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples
Pace, and the Teatro del Fondo.16 The Fiorentini was the first public theater to
program the commedja pe’ mmuseca in Naples, beginning in 1709, and it preserved
its ties to comic genres for the remainder of the eighteenth century. The success
of the Fiorentini and its programming of the commedja was also the catalyst for
the building of the Teatro Nuovo in 1724. The conception of the Nuovo by the
entrepreneurial consortium that underwrote its creation was unprecedented: it was
specified that the theater was to be placed on a “nuovo polo spettacolare posto
topograficamente in posizione parallela alle altre due sale”17 (new spectacular
geographic post in parallel position to the other two theaters [Fiorentini and San
Bartolomeo]). The intent was clear; the Nuovo was to compete directly with the
Fiorentini and the Teatro San Bartolomeo, the latter of which was the predecessor
to the San Carlo and offered tragedy through the patronage of the court (through
the successive Spanish, Austrian, and then Bourbon governments) and the musical
personnel of the Reale Cappella. The financial and social success of the Nuovo
also spurred the refurbishment of a private residence, owned by the prince of
Chiusano, Tiberio Carafa, which was transformed into the Teatro della Pace for the
staging of comic works. The della Pace, although often the source of contentious
litigation, commissioned a number of new and influential works in the burgeoning
commedia tradition. A sense of the cultural resonance of the commedia early in
the eighteenth century is indeed derived from the official reaction to its popularity,
which noted bitterly, “i napoletani, che sono tutti di pessimo gusto, disertano il
S. Bartolomeo dove si rappresenta in modo eccellente l’Astarte dello Zeno e del
Pariati, e riempiono il Teatro dei Fiorentini, ove si fa una vera porcheria, indegna
d’esser vista, in lingua napoletana”18 (The Neapolitans, who are all of the worst
taste, desert the San Bartolomeo where Astarte, by Zeno and Pariati, is presented in
an excellent manner, and they fill the Teatro dei Fiorentini, where there is offered
in the Neapolitan dialect a true piece of filth, unworthy of being seen). Albeit
highly critical of the repertoire, this statement makes clear that the commedia was
undermining audience attendance at—and, more important, the financial success
of the tragic opera produced by—the court at the San Bartolomeo. By the last
third of the century, the Bourbon court had become increasingly involved in the
creation of comic opera. The Fiorentini theater was placed under the management
of the court, which paid for its reconstruction after a devastating fire in 1779.
This direct stake in the comic traditions of the city, fueled by the interest of the
sovereign, aristocratic, and intellectual communities, was brought to fruition in
16
For the Neapolitan theaters, see Benedetto Croce, I teatri di Napoli (Naples:
Pierro, 1891); Franco Mancini, ed., Il Teatro di San Carlo, 3 vols (Naples: Electa Napoli
1987); Francesco Cotticelli and Paologiovanni Maione, Onesto divertimento ed allegria
de’ popoli: Materiali per una storia dello spettacolo a Napoli nel primo Settecento (Milan:
Ricordi, 1996).
17
Cotticelli and Maione, Onesto divertimento, p. 138.
18
Quoted in Eugenio Battisti, Per una indagine sociologica sui librettisti napoletani
buffi del Settecento (Rome: De Luca Editore, 1960), p. 6.
Introduction
9
the construction of the Teatro del Fondo. The theater was built in 1777–78, and
its full name, Teatro del Fondo di separazione dei lucri, identified its funding
source as being from the sale of property held by the Jesuit community before its
expulsion a decade earlier. The Fondo, designed primarily for comic repertoire,
was inaugurated with L’infedeltà fedele, composed by Cimarosa to a libretto of
Giovanni Battista Lorenzi, in July 1779. Over the next two decades, the Fondo
commissioned a notable array of original comedies and also imported works from
beyond the kingdom, including the Mozart and da Ponte operas. The importance
of the new theater was twofold. On one hand, the Fondo resolved practical issues,
namely the less-than-ideal production capacity of the private theater at the Palazzo
Reale, which had served as the venue for comic opera performances offered to the
court. Even more important, it possessed the distinction of the royal imprimatur,
which, by extension, granted the commedia official legitimacy. The Bourbon court,
no longer merely an occasional spectator, was now directly responsible for critical
creative and production roles in the cultivation of comic genres. Direct patronage
of theater on the part of the court also increased its vigilance regarding content,
as in the famous case of Socrate immaginario, by Giovanni Battista Lorenzi,
Ferdinando Galiani and Giovanni Paisiello (see Chapter 1). This new reality of
patronage, production, and politics underlies the commedia’s significant position
in contemporary Neapolitan society of the late eighteenth century. The royal court
now boasted two exclusive venues, the Fondo and the San Carlo, extending its
monopoly over theatrical culture in the capital city.
Along these same lines in the final decades of the eighteenth century in
Naples, the court broadened its purview and patronage to include an innovative,
emergent form of sacred theater, the azione sacra per musica (see Chapters 5
and 6). Although the genre designation was not entirely new and sacred dramas
had been written in the city for almost two centuries (whether in the conservatories
as graduation theses or simply as devotional music), the royal court created and
closely patronized an autonomous season of works based on Old Testament
sources to be performed in the San Carlo during Lent. The result was a genre of
theater that bore all the hallmarks of contemporary practice in its musical and
poetic content. The azione sacra also attracted the participation of the leading
musicians of Naples, yet it had the resonance of a new form of devotional theater,
one in which temporal and spiritual authority were unified in the person of the
sovereign. This genre bore clear lines of continuity as well to the changing
religious environment of Naples at a time of continued difficulties in ecclesiastical
matters and the relationship with the Holy See. The development of the tradition
of Lenten tragedies, largely exclusive to Naples, reflected the unique practices of
the city, yet was in content and conventions clearly related to the international
mainstream. The commission and representation of these works thrived until the
end of the century and ultimately culminated in the nineteenth century with works
such as Gioachino Rossini’s Mosè in Egitto (1818).
Neapolitan theatrical culture also boasted distinguished and renowned
traditions of theatrical dance. Ballet had been cultivated since the establishment
10
Opera, Theatrical Culture and Society in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples
of the San Carlo by royal decree of Carlo di Borbone, who ordered that ballet
replace the comic intermezzi performed between acts of tragedy. In the last third
of the eighteenth century, Naples was an important center in the circulation of the
ballet d’action (see Chapters 7 and 8). At the forefront of this change in orientation
from the native grottesco traditions was Charles LePicq, who introduced the
reform-inspired ballet genre to the city and remained as maestro di ballo for
almost a decade. LePicq’s tenure was marked by an unprecedented cultivation
of ballet and its rising stature in local theater, to the extent that in substance (not
to mention length) these entr’actes came to resemble the operas themselves.
Even the productive parameters of LePicq’s and his successors’ ballets rivaled
those of the works that formed the annual theatrical calendar, with the salaries of
the primi ballerini exceeding those of the vocal cast engaged for operas. More
important, the ballet d’action remained a staple of Neapolitan theatrical culture
after the departure of LePicq. The overseers of the San Carlo continued to attract
the collaborations of the finest choreographers and ballerini as well as leading
musicians from the city or from outside of the kingdom. The acclaim of the works
themselves placed Naples on a par with the leading centers of theatrical dance in
Europe.
Naples and Neapolitan Opera
Nowhere on the Italian peninsula or within the European continent did any city
equal the breadth of operatic traditions found in Naples—not Vienna, London, Paris,
or Venice. These capitals of culture and theater did not possess, to the same extent
or level of consistency, the dense infrastructure of educational institutions (namely
the conservatories, ospedali, or private bodies), the multiple venues (public and
private), and the long-standing patronage and backing of either civic, political, or
ecclesiastical entities as in Naples. Comparisons can be made to Venice and Vienna,
yet with some qualifications. This means that the regional distinctions within the
theatrical genres of Venice possessed a similar cultural profile to Naples, yet were
largely assimilated into mainstream traditions. Furthermore, the sheer number
of graduates of the Neapolitan conservatories and their achievements simply
overshadowed that of any other city on the Italian peninsula. It is also accurate to
compare Vienna to Naples in the eighteenth century; however, a sense of parity
emerges only in the so-called Mozart decade. A worthwhile point to contemplate,
moreover, is that the operas of Neapolitan musicians—namely Paisiello (above
all), Cimarosa, and Guglielmi—were performed as frequently as, if not even more
often than, the collaborations of Mozart and da Ponte, and other contemporaries
active in the imperial city.19 The most persuasive argument supporting this line of
19
For the data regarding this point, see Michael F. Robinson, “The alternative endings
of Mozart’s Don Giovanni,” in Opera buffa in Mozart’s Vienna, ed. Mary Hunter and James
Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 261–87.
Introduction
11
thought is that the Neapolitan theatrical milieu had produced tragedy, comedy, and
sacred theater for public and private patrons since the mid-seventeenth century,
and this repertoire continued to increase consistently in output and quality thereof
by the beginning of the eighteenth century. It is from this perspective—the verities
of cultivation, contextual cultural factors and finally consumption—that the
understanding of “Neapolitan opera,” even the phrase itself, should be revisited.
The definition of a style of operatic composition, such as “Neapolitan
opera,” was first invoked in the late eighteenth century by none other than
Saverio Mattei, who utilized it as a tool of criticism for contemporary theater.20
Mattei applied this historiographic phrase to the generation of local musicians
spanning Giovanni Battista Pergolesi to Niccolò Jommelli and closely linked the
identity of “Neopolitan opera” to the libretti of Pietro Metastasio. This phrase
has been repeated again and again in research, and as recently as the twentieth
century preserved its close association with Metastasian tragedy. Yet the label
has ironically taken on a negative connotation, implying an out-of-fashion style
of heroic opera that persisted and predominated in the city because of the longstanding patronage of the Bourbon court. This view is at best too narrow; at worst
it is simply inaccurate. Michael Robinson, in his landmark monograph Naples
and Neapolitan Opera, which remains the only significant study on the topic in
English, dislodged this exclusive association, offering a broad yet richly detailed
portrait of eighteenth-century opera in the capital city. My book utilizes Robinson’s
purview as a point of departure. Rather than adopting the phrase “Neapolitan
opera,” I have chosen “opera, theatrical culture, and society” to reflect the breadth
of eighteenth-century traditions in circulation in the city. This approach has also
entailed an extension of Robinson’s approach, in which I examine contemporary
theatrical life within the broader context of Enlightenment culture in Naples and
at times beyond the kingdom. As such, theater serves multiple roles; it can be
viewed not only as an expression of contemporary art, society, and often ideology,
but also as a lens through which to view the capital from both a national and
an international perspective. Rather than a defined single style possessing an
exclusive relationship to the city or even a particular set of conventions, the phrase
“opera, theatrical culture and society” refers broadly to the diversity of genres
cultivated in Naples and the unique cultural context and factors that animated their
creation. The evidence provided in the course of the narrative also reaffirms the
considerable significance of Neapolitan theatrical culture to the eighteenth century
and to modern scholarship.
20
For more recent discussions of this issue, see Edward O.D. Downes, “The
Neapolitan Tradition in Opera,” in Report of the Eighth Congress of the International
Musicological Society New York 1961, ed. Jan LaRue, vol. 1 (Kassel, 1961), pp. 277–84.
Also see Francesco Degrada, “L’opera napoletana,” in Storia dell’ opera, ed. Guglielmo
Barblan and Alberto Basso, vol. 1 (Turin: Unione Tipografia-Editrice Torinese, 1977),
pp. 237–43.
This page has been left blank intentionally